If We Are, Indeed, in a Realigning Period Favoring the Democratic Party…

My last topic, “Realigning Elections for U.S. President,” addressed past periods in which the presidency became realigned to a given political party for 32 to 36 years.

I mentioned that Election 2020, if it switches the White House party from the Republican to the Democratic column, will confirm that we are indeed in a period, favoring the Democrats, which began in 2008. (That the party will have won three of four cycles and, come Election 2024, will move up from four to five—a parallel with the 1968 Republicans going from at least 1968 to 1984.)

In the past realigning periods, there were a few special states that performed like bellwethers during these realigning periods. I will take a moment to cite the ones which applied.

☑ 1860–1892—Republican: No state voted with the winner in all 9 cycles. The closest was Indiana. It voted with the winner in 8 of 9 cycles and backed 1876 U.S. Popular Vote winner Samuel Tilden. So, without fully penalizing states which sided with popular-vote winners, Indiana was good for 8.50 of 9.

☑ 1896–1928—Republican: New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Ohio were carried in all 9 cycles. (The latter two have, so far in history, carried for all Republican winners.)

☑ 1932–1964—Democratic: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Texas backed all winners. (At the time, Texas had carried for all Democratic winners.)

☑ 1968–2004—Republican: Two states with impeccable reputations as bellwethers, Ohio and Missouri, carried in all. So did neighboring states Tennessee and Kentucky.

If we can count 2008, to an unknown point, this period can look for possibilities in six states for being the most reliably carried.

☑ 2008–20xx—Democratic: Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were carried in 2008 and 2012 (for Democrat Barack Obama) and in 2016 (for Republican Donald Trump). Election 2020 is pending. So are future elections which, if we are indeed in a period in which the presidency is realigned to the Democrats, this can go to, say, 2040 or 2044.

Congratulations to these states’ records! (And to those going forward. My home state is on the list.)


Going on the premise that Election 2008 ushered in a presidential realigning period favoring the Democrats, I ask, “Who will they help?”

The parties do realign.

The 1896 Republicans realigned into a Party for Big Business. (They courted business for elections.)

The 1932 Democrats realigned into what was considered a Party for the People—delivering during that period on Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The 1968 Republicans realigned by combining their servitude to Big Business with overhauling the tax system that is now weighing down the have-nots here in this new decade of the 2020s.

What are the 2008 Democrats going to do?

What would the Democrats become known for, especially with and following the coronavirus pandemic, during this realigning period that would be so favorable for their party?

Today’s Democrats who hold any meaningful power—presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden; the party’s leader in the U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer; and U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi—are influenced by the 1968 Republican realigning period of the presidency and its biggest standout, Ronald Reagan. (They are corporatists!)

Given the fact that I cannot answer what will actually happen…a conclusion that may be made is that the United States, with whatever it will get in leadership, but most especially in policies, will finally move in a healthier direction (for the nation and its people)—or it will get taken apart more and more with each coming and passing year.

I supposed the one thing guaranteed is that this will be interesting.

Realigning Elections for U.S. President

If Election 2020 switches the White House from Republican to Democratic, it will mark the third of four United States presidential election cycles which was won by that party.

Walter Dean Burnham, a professor, political scientist, and author who was born in 1930, came up with a theory on Realigning Elections dealing with critical elections especially in United States history. (Source: Wikipedia — Walter Dean Burnham.)

There have been particular points, typically spaced out between 30- to 40-year periods, in which some event—I will use the word catalyst—caused the incumbent party to lose, I shall say faith, in the voting electorate. A given presidential election that marked the turning point. A critical election. A new realigning election. (Source: Wikipedia — Realigning election.)

What a realigning election does, at the level of U.S. President, is usher in a new period in which the party that benefits becomes dominant for an outstanding majority of election cycles. This has certainly applied to the United States’s current two-party system—the Republican and Democratic political parties—since the former first prevailed in the realigning presidential election of 1860.



Realigning Elections for the Republicans and Democrats

☑ 1860–1892—Republican: Noted by Wikipedia as being the election that was the catalyst of the American Civil War, the Republicans won their first United States presidential election, with Abraham Lincoln, in 1860. The party won 7 of 9 cycles (1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880, and 1888). The out party, the Democratic Party, won 2 of 9 with non-consecutive wins in 1884 and 1892 by Grover Cleveland.

☑ 1896–1928—Republican: The Panic of 1893 struck on the watch of Democrat Grover Cleveland, delivering Congress in the 1894 midterm elections to the Republicans. The 1896 election, with William McKinley, saw the beginning of the party eventually having won 7 of  9 cycles (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1920, 1924, and 1928). The out party, the Democratic Party, won 2 of 9 cycles with wins in 1912 and 1916 by Woodrow Wilson.

☑ 1932–1964—Democratic: The stock market crash and the Great Depression struck on the watch of Republican Herbert Hoover, who clearly did not know how to deal with it. This delivered a blow to his re-election as the nation shifted 35 percentage points, from 1928 to 1932, and turned 34 states blue to deliver 42 (of a then-48) states to Franklin Roosevelt. He ushered in a New Deal and a Democratic realignment covering the 1930s and 1940s and the first two cycles of the 1960s. The party won the 7 of 9 cycles of 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, and 1964. The out party, the Republican Party, won 2 of 9 cycles in 1952 and 1956 by Dwight Eisenhower.

☑ 1968–2004—Republican: The Vietnam War—with its increasing unpopularity and its dividing the party—took its toll on Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Early primaries states showed he was weak. And on March 31, 1968, Johnson announced his decision to not run for possible re-election. The party’s crackup at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, in Chicago, Illinois, eventually led to their defeat in November. A Republican pickup of the presidency for Richard Nixon was the start of the party winning 7 of 10 cycles. It was a matter of timing which extended the number of cycles by one. The Republicans won in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. The out party, the Democratic Party, won the remaining 3 cycles with a sole term won in 1976 by Jimmy Carter and the two terms won in 1992 and 1996 by Bill Clinton.

Those are not a complete list. I did not cite 1800 and 1828 because, in this current period, we have the exact two political parties—Republican and Democratic—which dates back to that example of 1860. And from 1860 to the previous election cycle, 2016, were a period of 156 years and 40 election cycles. The previous, presidential realigning election period cutoff may have been 2004. And this had many, back when we approaching and into Election 2008, thinking that that year’s election would move to a new period of realigning the presidency to the Democrats. So, let us further consider:

☑ 2008–20xx—Democratic: The Iraq War and the Economic Meltdown of 2008 were on the watch of the term-limited Republican-affiliated U.S. president George W. Bush. There was no doubt, by anyone with a sense of history, the presidency was going to switch in 2008 from Republican to Democratic. Barack Obama became the first person who is black to get elected U.S. president. In 2012, he won re-election. 2016 was a Republican pickup for Donald Trump. And, as we are five-plus months from Election Day, Trump is vulnerable to becoming the 11th president who, in his efforts to win re-election, may become unseated. What would be the catalyst is the coronavirus pandemic having struck on the watch of Trump. On the watch of U.S. president who is affiliated with the Republican Party. COVID–19 is devastating. Devastating with fatalities. Devastating with the lives in continues to put at risk. It is also devastating on the economy, at least here in the United States, which includes massive unemployment. Can Trump recover from job-approval numbers suggesting he is good for the 43- to 46-percent range—when the two-party vote for U.S. President typically combines for 97 to 99 percent—and suggests he could lose the U.S. Popular Vote by the range of –5 to –13 percentage points? That would suggest a 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency, for presumptive nominee Joe Biden, of 27 to 35 states which means, for Trump, carrying between 15 to 23 states. If Trump does not win re-election, it would be hard to make the argument that Election 2008 did not mark the beginning of a new period of realigning the presidency to the Democrats.


When reading the topic of Realigning Elections, it does not cover only United States presidential elections. But, where are at right now—in late-May 2020—cannot be answered factually as to whether we are in a Democratic presidential realignment until the arrival and passing of Election Day, November 3, 2020.

My sense is this: If Election 2020 ends up switching U.S. President from Republican to Democratic, you can look back to a 40-year parallel. 1968 to 1980 saw three of four cycles won by the Republicans. 2008 to 2020 would become three of four cycles won by the Democrats.

Also worth considering: Election 1984 was a Republican hold, for Ronald Reagan. If Election 2020 becomes a Democratic pickup, it is more likely than not that Election 2024 would end up a Democratic hold. So, take those five cycles of 1968 to 1984, and note that four were won by the Republicans. Run a 40-year parallel, and consider the cycles of 2008 to 2024, and note that four of five would become won by the Democrats.

If what I am pointing out here, in this period of time, manifests...I would have to reach the conclusion that, beginning in 2008, we are in a presidential realigning period favoring the Democratic Party.

Electoral Sports

The blog topics to be published next week have to do with electoral history.

As I had previously written, I intend to post a few electoral topics—but not excessively in their numbers or their frequency—in each of the six consecutive months leading up to the general election scheduled for November 3, 2020. (This covers the months May to October.)

One thing to keep in mind is this: Neither the United States’s Republican or Democratic political parties represent us—the have-nots—and that is intentional.

I cannot muster excitement over a 2020 general-election matchup of Trump-vs.-Biden.

At this point, the United States presidential election is merely Electoral Sports.

Historical voting pattern can be referenced, when making arguments for why Team Red or Team Blue will likely have the better year, but this may as well be, say, baseball.

A batter [for a team] steps up to the plate, is about to perform, but before he does the viewer is given historical and statistical information [about the batter and/or his team] which renders human beings like that batter to be, ultimately, less human and unimportant.

The United States presidential election of 2020 promises will be no different.

‘The Democrats never learn’

Since 2016, just after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton lost the United States presidential election to a Republican pickup winning Donald Trump, there has been a phrase often repeated.

The Democrats never learn.

This is about corporate Democrats rejecting progressivism—and some progressives, actual progressives, thinking the corporate Democrats are wrong in their understanding of the electorate and the period in which we are living.

This comes from those who voted the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination not to Hillary Clinton but to Bernie Sanders.

The Democrats never learn.

The progressives have it wrong.

Who hasn’t learned—at least not yet—are those progressives who are still being a part of the Democratic Party.

Being a part of the Democratic Party involves not just running for office in the Democratic Party. It also includes voting for the Democratic Party.

The Democrats—the corporate Democrats—do not have “their blinders on,” which are words used in the above Hard Lens Media video. (That video commentary is about the party’s recent loss, in a Republican pickup, of the special U.S. House election in California’s 25th Congressional District.)

The corporate Democrats have the party they, for the most part, want.

What the corporate Democrats really want, if they could get it to work out for them, was revealed and explained in 2014 by New York U.S. senator and minority leader Chuck Schumer.

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia—and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

I will re-post the quote with the emphasis (in bold) which allows one to accurately read between the lines of that important message.

“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia—and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Chuck Schumer, and the rest of his fellow corporate Democrats, would like to choose—if they can—for their voters to be Republicans.

[Republicans] are who and what Chuck Schumer and his fellow corporate Democrats want.

It’s who they are.

‘Leftists Jump the Corporate Democratic Ship, Leaving Sanders Behind’

Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford has a marvelous piece about numerous of the people who supported—and who voted—the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to Bernie Sanders being unwilling to Vote Blue No Matter Who.

Link:

Leftists Jump the Corporate Democratic Ship, Leaving Sanders Behind

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

I also recommend the following by Black Agenda Report’s Quetzal Cáceres:

Link:

The Sheepdog Caucus and So-Called “Democratic” Socialists

Obamagate

Jimmy Dore welcomed as his guest Max Blumenthal to discuss Obamagate.

‘Ray McGovern: New House Documents Sow Further Doubt That Russia Hacked the DNC’

Last weekend, Consortium News published  this latest by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern about the falseness of Russia-gate.

Link:

Ray McGovern: New House Documents Sow Further Doubt That Russia Hacked the DNC


I want to share the following readers comment:

For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn’t have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.

Twin Pillars of Russiagate Crumble

Maybe so. I sure that this is correct. But, so what. Everyone ‘knows’ those devious Russians hacked the DNC. I would love this silly assertion not to be the case but this is how propaganda and manipulation works. It’s all about inference, and associationist thinking which slowly seeps into the popular consciousness and is taken to be objective ‘truth’.

“The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performace as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyses in a way in which he would recognise as infantile withing the sphere of his own interests. He becomes a primitive again. His thinking becomes associative and affective … Information is plentiful and readily available. But this does not seem to make any difference … he is impatient of long complicated arguments. All of which goes to show that without the initiative which comes from immediate responsibility, ignorance will persist in the face of masses of information however complete and correct.”  

[Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, by Joseph Schumpeter, 1942]

Sorry, I have to call it like I see it.

—Francis Lee, May 10, 2020